By Dr. Shweta Agarwal, MBBS, DGO Medically reviewed by Dr. Shweta Agarwal, MBBS, DGO Last updated: July 2026
Information on this page is educational and does not replace a medical consultation. Outcomes depend on individual clinical factors.
Aansh Hospital & IVF Center is a government-registered Level-2 ART clinic (Reg. No. MH/AC/2024/15441/L2/Chandrapur/132), part of a growing network of fertility centers across Vidarbha and northern Telangana — but unlike a chain, where each centre's doctors decide independently, Dr. Shweta Agarwal holds final treatment authority for every cycle, at every location. Our headquarters and in-house embryology lab are in Chandrapur. Our government ART registration covers IVF, ICSI, and embryo transfer — all performed on-site under the clinical leadership of Dr. Shweta Agarwal and embryology led by Aayush Agarwal, Ph.D..
This is the question that gets asked quietly, usually by a parent or a mother-in-law, usually after the couple has already decided to go ahead. Test tube baby theek rahega na? Bachche ko koi problem to nahi hogi?
It deserves a real answer, not reassurance. Below is what the published evidence actually shows — including the parts that are not perfectly reassuring — with every claim attributed to a named source, and every source linked at the bottom of the page so you can check it yourself.
The short answers to the four questions people actually ask
Is a test tube baby safe? For the child, the long-term evidence is broadly reassuring; for the pregnancy, there is a modest, measurable increase in some complications, largely concentrated in twin pregnancies.
Test tube baby is good or bad? Neither — it is a treatment with real benefits for specific diagnoses and a real, quantifiable set of risks and costs, which are set out below.
Has a test tube baby ever lived? Yes. Louise Brown, born 25 July 1978, is alive, in her forties, and has two children of her own, both conceived naturally.
Can IVF babies have kids? The first IVF-conceived people have gone on to conceive naturally. Population-level data on the adult fertility of IVF-conceived people is still limited, and one area — ICSI-conceived men — carries a specific caveat covered below.
What does being a test tube baby mean?
A "test tube baby" is a child conceived by in vitro fertilisation (IVF). In vitro is Latin for "in glass" — a reference to the laboratory dish where the egg and sperm are brought together. That is the entire origin of the phrase.
No baby has ever grown in a test tube. Fertilisation happens in a flat culture dish inside an incubator that holds a controlled temperature, humidity and gas composition suited to early embryo development. The resulting embryo spends a few days there, and is then placed into the mother's uterus. If implantation occurs, everything after that — the placenta, the months of pregnancy, the delivery — happens exactly as in any other pregnancy.
So "test tube baby" describes where fertilisation happened for a few days. It does not describe the child, and it is not a category of person.
Is test tube baby the same as IVF?
Yes. They are the same thing. "Test tube baby" is the 1978 newspaper phrase; "IVF" is the medical term. There is no procedure called "test tube baby" that is different from, cheaper than, or more advanced than IVF — if a clinic prices them as two separate treatments, ask exactly what they mean.
One genuine distinction worth knowing is ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection), where a single sperm is injected directly into the egg rather than sperm and egg being left to fertilise on their own. ICSI is a variation used mainly for male-factor infertility and certain other specific indications. It is still IVF — and it matters later in this article, because several of the small risk signals in the research have been reported for ICSI specifically rather than for conventional IVF.
How is a test tube baby born? (test tube baby kaise hota hai)
The same way any baby is born — through labour or a caesarean, decided on obstetric grounds, in a hospital delivery room.
The IVF part happens months earlier and looks like this:
- Ovarian stimulation — daily injections, usually for around 10–12 days, so that several eggs mature instead of one.
- Egg retrieval — a short ultrasound-guided day-care procedure under sedation or brief anaesthesia.
- Fertilisation in the lab — sperm and egg combined in a culture dish, or ICSI performed where indicated.
- Embryo culture — typically 3 to 5 days (sometimes 6) in the incubator, monitored by the embryologist.
- Embryo transfer — a thin catheter places the embryo into the uterus. Usually no anaesthesia and no incision; some patients are offered mild analgesia or sedation. The transfer may be done in the same cycle (fresh) or after freezing, in a later frozen embryo transfer cycle.
- Implantation, if it occurs — from that point it is a pregnancy like any other, with ordinary antenatal care and an ordinary delivery. Not every transfer results in a pregnancy; see is IVF 100% successful.
The full sequence is set out in our first IVF cycle week-by-week timeline.
Has a test tube baby ever lived?
Yes — and the first one is a woman in her forties with two children of her own.
Louise Joy Brown was born on 25 July 1978 at Oldham General Hospital, England, following work by Patrick Steptoe, Robert Edwards and Jean Purdy. Robert Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2010 for the development of IVF.
Louise Brown grew up, married, and had two sons — the first born on 20 December 2006, the second in 2013. Both were conceived naturally, without fertility treatment.
Her younger sister Natalie Brown, also conceived by IVF, was born in 1982 and reported as the world's 40th IVF birth. In May 1999 she became the first person conceived by IVF to give birth herself — again, conceived without IVF.
Since 1978, IVF has produced many millions of births worldwide. The question "has a test tube baby ever lived" belongs to 1978. Today the first generation of IVF-conceived people are in their forties, and a number of them are parents.
Can IVF babies have kids?
The direct evidence we have says yes, with one honest caveat and one honest limitation.
The evidence. Louise Brown and her sister Natalie Brown, both conceived by IVF, each conceived naturally. There is no known biological mechanism by which the IVF procedure itself would damage a child's future fertility.
The limitation. Two well-documented cases are not population-level proof. Systematic data on the adult reproductive outcomes of IVF-conceived people is still limited, simply because the oldest cohort is only now moving through its reproductive years. Anyone who tells you this question is definitively closed is going beyond the evidence.
The caveat. Follow-up of young adult men conceived by ICSI for male-factor infertility (Belva et al., Human Reproduction, 2016) has reported lower average sperm concentration and total sperm count than in naturally conceived peers. The likeliest explanation is inheritance of the father's underlying subfertility rather than an effect of the injection technique — but it is a real finding and you should know about it if ICSI is being recommended for severe male factor.
Related to this: where the cause of infertility is itself heritable — for example a Y-chromosome microdeletion — that specific cause will be passed to a son conceived with that sperm, because he inherits that Y chromosome. This is why karyotyping and separate Y-chromosome microdeletion testing, along with genetic counselling, are offered before ICSI in selected severe male-factor cases.
For the large majority of couples — blocked tubes, PCOS, endometriosis, age-related decline, unexplained infertility — none of this applies.
Are IVF babies healthy? What the registry studies actually say
This is where the sourcing matters, because most clinic websites answer this with a paragraph of reassurance and no citations. Here is the actual literature, with its limitations stated.
| Study | What it looked at | What it found |
|---|---|---|
| Hart & Wijs, Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 2022 — narrative review of long-term IVF outcomes, childhood to adolescence | Growth, cardiometabolic markers, neurodevelopment, epigenetics | Evidence on long-term health "appears reassuring". A small but statistically significant increase in blood pressure in some cohorts; a higher reported rate of rare imprinting disorders; epigenetic differences largely resolved by adulthood. Authors stress small sample sizes and short follow-up across the field |
| Halliday et al., Fertility and Sterility, 2019 (Victoria, Australia) | 193 ART-conceived adults aged 22–35 vs 86 non-ART controls: arteries, blood pressure, glucose, lipids, lung function | No evidence of increased vascular or cardiometabolic risk, growth or respiratory impairment, or reduced wellbeing. Small cohort with substantial non-participation; a higher reported history of asthma despite similar measured lung function; the authors called for replication |
| Davies et al., New England Journal of Medicine, 2012 (whole-population South Australian registry) | Birth defects after assisted conception | Any birth defect in 8.3% of assisted-conception births vs 5.8% of spontaneous births. For IVF and ICSI combined, unadjusted odds ratio 1.43 (95% CI 1.26–1.62). After multivariate adjustment, IVF 1.07 (0.90–1.26) — not statistically significant; ICSI 1.57 (1.30–1.90) — still significant |
| Spaan et al., Human Reproduction Open, 2023 (Netherlands; 89,249 children, 51,417 ART-conceived, median 18 years' follow-up) | Cancer in children, adolescents and young adults conceived by ART | No increased overall cancer risk versus naturally conceived children of subfertile couples: adjusted hazard ratio 1.06 (95% CI 0.84–1.33) |
Two threads run through all of this, and they are the honest core of the answer.
First, the comparison group changes the answer. When IVF children are compared with the general population, small differences appear. When they are compared with children conceived naturally by couples who also had difficulty conceiving, most of those differences shrink. Hart and Wijs make the point directly: subfertility itself is associated with an increased risk of several obstetric complications irrespective of whether ART is used. In their own data, adolescents born to subfertile parents without ART had a higher rate of depression (13.7%) than the general comparison group (6.9%) — a difference that has nothing to do with a laboratory. What this cannot do is prove the technique contributes nothing; observational data can shift the weight of the explanation, not eliminate a factor entirely.
Second, twin pregnancy accounts for a large share of the risk people attribute to IVF. Preterm birth, low birth weight and neonatal intensive care are markedly more common in twin pregnancies than in singleton pregnancies, whether conceived naturally or by IVF. Historically IVF produced many twins because two or three embryos were transferred at a time. That is a clinical choice, not a property of IVF — and reducing it is the most direct thing a clinic can do to lower the risk to your baby. We explain the reasoning in single vs double embryo transfer.
IVF side effects on baby: what is genuinely established
Stated plainly, without softening:
- Preterm birth and low birth weight are more common after IVF than after natural conception. Twin pregnancy is the dominant contributor and parental subfertility a further one; how much the technique itself adds is uncertain and, on current evidence, appears small.
- Birth defects are somewhat more common after assisted conception overall (8.3% vs 5.8% in Davies et al., 2012). Once parental and pregnancy factors were adjusted for, the excess persisted for ICSI but not for conventional IVF.
- Imprinting disorders such as Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome are reported at a higher rate after ART. The evidence comes mainly from registry and case-control studies with very small numbers of affected children; these conditions are rare in the general population and remain rare after ART, so the absolute risk to any individual pregnancy stays very low. The size of the association is not precisely established.
- Blood pressure is very slightly higher in ART-conceived children in some cohorts and no different in others; the Australian adult cohort found no cardiometabolic difference at ages 22–35.
- Long-term development, appearance and school performance show no established difference in the studies published so far. That is not the same as proof of no difference — the oldest IVF cohorts are only in their forties, so genuinely long-range outcomes (late-adult disease, lifespan) cannot yet have been measured by anyone.
What is not supported by evidence, despite being widely repeated: that IVF babies are constitutionally weaker, that they are less intelligent, that they cannot have children, or that they can be made to be boys.
Does IVF cause cancer? (ivf side effects cancer)
Two separate questions get mixed together here — cancer in the child, and cancer in the mother. They have different evidence bases.
Cancer in the child. The largest recent analysis, Spaan et al. (Human Reproduction Open, 2023), followed 89,249 Dutch children — 51,417 of them ART-conceived — for a median of 18 years and found no increased overall cancer risk (adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84–1.33). A subgroup analysis showed a higher estimate for ICSI-conceived children (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08–2.31), driven largely by melanoma; the authors state this "must be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of cases". A Danish registry study (Hargreave et al., 2019) reported a higher cancer rate in children born after frozen embryo transfer, again on very small case numbers, and this has not been consistently reproduced. Read together, the picture is reassuring for overall childhood cancer, with genuine uncertainty remaining for specific techniques and for cancers that appear later in adult life.
Cancer in the mother. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine's guideline Fertility drugs and cancer (2024) reviewed this systematically. Its summary statements, quoted rather than paraphrased:
- Ovarian cancer: "There is weak/moderate evidence that fertility treatment is associated with ovarian cancer… the overall risk is likely to be small (approximately 3 more cases per 100,000 person-years)." A weak association with borderline ovarian tumours is also reported, with weak evidence that part of it reflects underlying infertility or nulliparity.
- Endometrial cancer: "Underlying infertility increases the risk of uterine cancer. When women with subfertility are used as controls, the use of fertility drugs is not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer." Prolonged high-dose clomiphene is a separate, low-quality-evidence signal.
- Breast cancer: four of five higher-quality studies showed no association with ART; a meta-analysis reported an increase associated with prolonged clomiphene use (more than 10 cycles).
- Thyroid cancer: evidence is mixed, with some studies showing an increased risk with clomiphene.
- Colon and cervical cancer: no increased risk. Melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: insufficient data.
A 2026 study in JAMA Network Open (Walker, Vajdic and colleagues, UNSW Sydney) followed 417,984 Australian women who had medically assisted reproduction between 1991 and 2018. Overall invasive cancer incidence in women who had ART was comparable to expected rates; a slightly raised overall figure was seen in the clomiphene-treated group. Individual cancers moved in both directions, and the absolute excesses were small — of the order of a few extra cases per 100,000 person-years. The study was descriptive: it could not establish whether the signals came from the drugs or from the infertility that led to them.
That is the honest shape of it: no overall increase, a few small and inconsistent signals, and a recurring finding that infertility itself carries much of the risk commonly attributed to treatment. Association is not causation in either direction.
Test tube baby is good or bad? A fair summary
"Good or bad" is not really a medical question, so here is the fair framing.
| What IVF offers | A route to a biological child for couples with blocked tubes, severe male-factor infertility, low ovarian reserve, endometriosis, or long-standing unexplained infertility |
| What it costs you | 2–3 weeks of injections and monitoring per cycle, one day-care procedure under sedation, real financial cost, real emotional strain, and no guarantee of success in any single cycle |
| Risks that are real | OHSS and other short-term maternal risks; higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight, concentrated in twin pregnancies; a modest excess of birth defects, mainly seen with ICSI after adjustment |
| Risks that are not established | Increased overall childhood cancer; reduced intelligence or development; inability of IVF-conceived people to have children |
| What IVF does not do | Produce a different kind of child |
IVF is also not always the only option. Depending on your diagnosis, IUI, surgery for endometriosis or blocked tubes, ovulation induction, or simply more time may be reasonable alternatives — which is exactly what a proper assessment is for. Our free second opinion exists for this conversation.
India's own record: 1978 to today
India's history with IVF is almost exactly as old as the world's. Kanupriya Agarwal, known as Durga, was born in Kolkata on 3 October 1978 — about ten weeks after Louise Brown — following the work of Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay. His achievement was disputed and dismissed during his lifetime and recognised only years later. India's next widely documented IVF birth, Harsha Chawda, came in 1986 in Mumbai through the work of Dr Indira Hinduja.
That gives India a record of IVF-conceived people stretching back to 1978 — a generation now well into adulthood, and in many cases parents themselves. Whatever anxieties surrounded 1978, they have been tested against real Indian lives for close to five decades.
Since the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force, every IVF clinic and ART bank in India must be registered on the National ART and Surrogacy Registry. Registration confirms that a clinic is legally authorised and inspected against prescribed standards — it is a basic check every patient can and should run before starting treatment, though it is not by itself a measure of outcomes. You can verify ours; how to verify any clinic's is explained in what an ART Level-2 registered clinic is and how to verify it.
What a clinic can actually do to reduce the real risks
Not everything in the risk list is fixed. These are the levers, and they are worth asking your clinic about directly:
Transfer a single embryo where clinically appropriate. This is the most direct safety decision in IVF, because it greatly reduces the chance of a twin pregnancy — the main contributor to preterm birth and low birth weight. (It does not eliminate twins entirely: a single embryo can still split.) A clinic that routinely puts back two or three embryos to lift its headline pregnancy rate is trading neonatal risk for its own statistics.
Use ICSI where it is indicated. ICSI is appropriate for severe male-factor infertility, previous fertilisation failure, surgically retrieved sperm, frozen oocytes and certain genetic-testing workflows. Used routinely without an indication, it has not been shown to improve live birth rates — and given that several of the small risk signals in the literature attach to ICSI, it should be a clinical decision rather than a default. See ICSI vs IVF — when is ICSI needed.
Prevent OHSS rather than treat it. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is the principal short-term risk to the mother. Antagonist protocols, dosing guided by AMH and antral follicle count, agonist triggers and freeze-all cycles where indicated all reduce it.
Know who is handling your embryos. Embryo culture depends on incubators, air quality and the embryologist watching the dishes. Ours is in Chandrapur and is led by Aayush Agarwal, Ph.D. — see why an on-site lab matters for what to ask about, wherever you are treated.
Treat the pregnancy as a pregnancy. An IVF pregnancy needs the same antenatal care as any other, plus attention to the specific risks the couple already carries — age, hypertension, diabetes, previous loss.
Talk to us before you decide
If you are weighing IVF for the first time, or you have been told a "test tube baby" carries risks nobody has explained to you, bring your reports and ask. Dr. Shweta Agarwal will go through your specific clinical picture — not a generic risk list — and tell you honestly whether IVF is the right step, and what it would and would not change for you.
WhatsApp or call +91 80056 85160, or book a free second opinion at our Chandrapur clinic. Couples travel to us from across Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Ballarpur, Warora, Yavatmal and northern Telangana — see IVF in Chandrapur: a logistics guide if you are coming from out of town.
Sources
- Hart RJ, Wijs LA. The longer-term effects of IVF on offspring from childhood to adolescence. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9773093/
- Halliday J, et al. Health of adults aged 22 to 35 years conceived by assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028219302444
- Davies MJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008095
- Spaan M, et al. Cancer risk in children, adolescents, and young adults conceived by ART in 1983–2011. Human Reproduction Open, 2023. https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2023/3/hoad027/7188110
- Belva F, et al. Semen quality of young adult ICSI offspring: the first results. Human Reproduction, 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27707840/
- Practice Committee of the ASRM. Fertility drugs and cancer: a guideline (2024). https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/fertility-drugs-and-cancer-a-guideline-2024/
- Walker A, Vajdic C, et al. Cancer incidence after medically assisted reproduction. JAMA Network Open, 2026. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846151
- NHS. IVF — risks. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/ivf/
- The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2010 (Robert G. Edwards). https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2010/popular-information/
- The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/17031